Universities will change to meet changing student needs. Some within the higher education establishment fear looming changes.  Change should be embraced by them for the opportunity offered to diverse students.

Many of the most powerful forces driving change in higher education come from the marketplace, driven by new societal needs, the limited availability of resources, rapidly evolving technology, and the emergence of new competitors such as for-profit ventures. Clearly in such a rapidly changing environment, agility and adaptability become important attributes of successful institutions.

James J. Duderstadt, President Emeritus, University of Michigan
____________________________________________________________

By Walter Wendler

Mitch Daniels, former governor of Indiana and now president of Purdue University, nearly got it right June 6, in Orlando, while addressing a group of for-profit educational leaders.   He’s interested in “results in higher education,” not a particular mode of delivery for a degree.  He suggested that, for some, online education is the way to go.

What he leaves out of the equation is the power of tailored hybrid programs that meet the needs the 21st century college student.  The new demographic defies categorization and cannot be put neatly in any box.

It is formal education one-at-a-time.

Students will increasingly secure educational opportunities from multiple sources: for profits, online, community colleges, four-year institutions, and a growing multitude of free sources.  For two decades the tin-foil-hatted prognosticators predicted traditional universities would be dinosaurs.  They were and are wrong.

Guttenberg’s gadget probably spawned the same fear: After all, why would you need a lecture hall when books where readily available at low cost?  The dinosaur is not the campus, but the idea that a student will attain education from a single source.
Daniels misses the point when he suggests that the competition is between different universities offering different delivery methods for knowledge insight and communication.

Burger King got it right when it proclaimed “Have it your way!” The student is climbing in the driver’s seat deciding what works best for him or her. This view demands more from faculty and leadership at all institutions of every stripe:  a sincere effort to recognize the strengths, weaknesses, costs, compromises and opportunities of various delivery methods and an honest appraisal of those in meeting the individual needs of students. Likewise the accrediting infrastructure must have a more open mind about what works and how it serves in a quality experience. Academic standards should not get thrown under the bus but must be viewed differently.

This thinking is the antithesis of one size fits all.

Imagine a student in pursuit of a bachelor’s degree completing 54 credits at a local community college.  She then transfers into the Bachelor of Science program at a brick and mortar establishment…with 40 of her credits.  She begins studies and, after a semester, transfers 6 credits back to the community college to attain her associate’s degree. (This is called “reverse transfer” and the associates’ degree becomes a no-cost “mile marker.” It seems like a good idea.)  She then takes a 6-credit study abroad program with the University of Southern California, doing so carefully so the courses transfer into the undergraduate degree at SIU.  Along the way she picks up a 4-credit physics course from MITx online: free. She needs to pay for competency testing so the credits will transfer, but it’s the best in the world.  Free.  And it goes on and on.

“She” is a married mother with two children who started at a community college when 36 years old.  Fifteen years later, she finished her undergraduate journey, as her children started theirs.

Nobody sets out to attain a degree in this fashion:  could not plan it if you tried. But agile universities, serving motivated students with intelligent faculty and leadership, create degree plans one-at-a-time, from diverse sources, to meet the needs of individual learners.

Now put this ever-changing sequence of opportunity tuned to cost and need in a bag, shake it up, and roll it out.
That’s a picture of what universities are going to look like. Inside the ivy covered box thinking won’t work.

Agility, thoughtfulness, and determination of those who offer educational experiences, and those who accept them, will be the glue that holds the enterprise together:  Hybridization, not tradition.

Students make decisions about studying for careers with some facts, but far too few when the costs are so high.  Ask anybody with a collection agency in tow and a degree and no job.  When education was 80 percent state subsidized it was not a problem.  It is now.
If a decision-making process is flawed and dysfunctional, decisions will go awry.
Carly Fiorina
___________________________________________________

By Walter Wendler

Whenever someone would walk in my office for a meeting I didn’t schedule, I would ask, “How much do you need?” The first response was always, “This is not about money it’s about academic excellence,” or “This is about a better working environment for faculty and staff,” or “This is about propelling the University forward.”  About 3 minutes into the conversation “the ask” was made and I would say, “See, I told you so.”

I would then go into my standard pitch which included this epithet, “This challenge is not ours alone, but the people at Harvard — who have more money than God — are sitting around a desk like this one at this very moment decrying the lack of resources.”  It’s the nature of chasing excellence.

As states reduced funding, universities infrequently modified mission and allocated scarce resources to the highest priorities. Debt deferring students are paying the freight with increased tuition and fees as the salve for scarcity’s wound.  Lately they are not too happy about it.

There are ways to increase resources for the highest priorities… the same way it happens in a household… tough decision making. If libraries are seen as the foundation of success for a university, invest in libraries — stadiums, students, faculty, and staff — same deal.

If leadership cannot assign priorities and continues increasing tuition and fees there is a high price to pay in dollars and public confidence. Debt burdens grow, students seek lower-cost alternatives, faculty move and, as always, the marketplace relentlessly rules.  Students and families pick the cost/quality/utility equation that works for them.

A devastating statistic from a Wells Fargo study reported by Halah Touryalai in Forbes last week is captured in the title, “Student Loan Problems: One Third Of Millennial’s Regret Going To College.”

Increasing costs and the perceived need to serve more and more students with less and less money is backbreaking work for the bean counters and leaves students holding the bag in bewilderment.  The debt and learning time-bomb continues to tick.
Last week Louisiana announced a plan to fund projects on community college campuses to train plumbers, welders, nurses, and others for high demand occupations. The protestations of Louisiana’s university leadership followed closely, with wailing and gnashing of teeth: Too much for the two year schools.

Populism, politics, and old-fashioned persuasion create community college charm.   Legislators perceive, rightly or wrongly, that investment for a skilled workforce have high public value.  The investment in some university education tends to be less easily justified:  that is the political reality.

Unfortunately too many institutions say “yes” to students not ready to study: They crave the loan dollars students are willing to sign up for.  There is institutional responsibility in this debt burden. There is also political responsibility as government insured loan money is available regardless of ability to pay-back.  Responsible behavior must prevail: Otherwise, the public trust, and the lives of individual student borrowers are compromised.

Thirty-three percent say, “This was a mistake?” Something’s kaput.

According to the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys in a study published last February graduating college seniors debt loads are growing at 5% per year. More troubling: The 35 to 49-year-old age group debt burdens grew by nearly 50%. Parent’s loans for the education of their offspring have increased 75% since 2005, and the average $34,000 borrowed by mom and dad exceeds $50,000 over a 10 year repayment plan. Meanwhile, default rates on government loans are near 20%.

The National Association of Home Builders says student indebtedness is having a negative impact on home buying.  The education bubble popping the recovering housing bubble:  Same song, different tune.

It must stop but it requires the political will of elected officials to demand accountability from universities and students have some proof of performance in their portfolio before borrowing. Especially as the cost of education increases: A wider gate at lower-cost community colleges, more scrutiny at the more expensive state flagships.

Or, on the other hand, we can tolerate or condone what Sussette Sheree Timmons pulled off according to a Dallas Morning News story last week.  Ms. Timmons enrolled in and dropped out of 13 colleges since 2009, being granted financial aid and not attending or participating:  A racket in this exaggerated and thankfully rare case.  We hope.

She faces fraud charges. We hope.

Thirteen institutions ignorant?  We hope.